A case for shoot, shovel, shut-up (bear killed not man)

[mamabearCali]

So a mama grizzly bear was threatening a man's property and family. He shot it, then called the authorites to alert them of the two other dangerous bears in the area. His reward charges for killing "an endagered specie"

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news ... f6b8a.html

[Jakeiscrazy]

That's just sad.

[Reverenddel]

It seems all the state representation, and quite a few of the state citizens, are backing him... I cannot see this going further... The Governor will get in on this, granting a "full pardon with restoration of rights" if he gets convicted.

Easy publicity for an election year.

[smltooner]

If this man is convicted, it will be a serious miscarriage of justice.
I just hope that PETA doesn't get involved.

[gunderwood]

Ah, bureaucrats. Rules are rules!

[meak99]

God forbid a Bald Eagle ever swoop into one's yard and start attacking their kid... then what?

[gunderwood]

God forbid a Bald Eagle ever swoop into one's yard and start attacking their kid... then what?

You'd be totally screwed. Not only is it protected, but an attack on the Eagle is an attack on the country! Terrorism for sure.

[suburbanredneck]

People are just nuts... my buddy found a wounded falcon during a jog through the woods the other day. He called animal control to report it and offered to put it out of its misery. they immediately became hostile and threatened to have him jailed for harming a protected bird of prey, or some such nonsense.

[Kreutz]

It was menacing pigs, not people. This guy isn't telling the whole story, my BS-ometer went up when I saw it was a 20 acre spread.

[mamabearCali]

It was menacing HIS pigs---and was in HIS yard where his children play. If a grizzly is comfy enough with people to walk into a person's yard and harass their animals--they are a danger to your family. With grizzlies you can't wait until they are charging in that confined of an area--you will be dead before they realize that they were even shot. This was a nuisance grizzly that was finding food at people's homes not in the woods. It would have eventually injured or killed someone. This man did every farmer in the county a favor.

[Kreutz]

It was menacing HIS pigs---and was in HIS yard where his children play. If a grizzly is comfy enough with people to walk into a person's yard and harass their animals--they are a danger to your family. With grizzlies you can't wait until they are charging in that confined of an area--you will be dead before they realize that they were even shot. This was a nuisance grizzly that was finding food at people's homes not in the woods. It would have eventually injured or killed someone. This man did every farmer in the county a favor.

But what does the law say? And 20 acres isn't a "yard" by any stretch of the imagination.

Edit:

What is a "nuisance" grizzly?

[OleMan]

It is the Feds. They will try like all hell to 'convict him of a crime'. The real crime is that our "gubmint" (including states) considers the life of any animal more important than the safety of a person, his family or the preservation of his/her property. I could tell you of at least a few true stories where they have done just that.

In this case the bear's life is apparently worth more to the "law" than the lives of the hogs - kinda weird logic. Personally, I hope some organization will step in get him a good lawyer, pay his legal fees and beat this stupidity

Oleman

That's for the jerks who passed such laws.

[mamabearCali]

Apparently he was charge by the federalis because by Idaho state law he is in the clear. Isn't prosecutor discretion wonderful!

Edit: I know you like a big strong federal gov't Kreutz but this is one area (among many) that should be handled by local law--not federal.


http://species.idaho.gov/pdf/grizzly_plan.pdf

Specifically
"APPENDIX IV – Definitions used for Nuisance Bear Guidelines.

Nuisance grizzly bear: a grizzly bear that depredates livestock, causes property damage, or uses unnatural food that has been reasonably secured from the grizzly bear; or, a grizzly bear that displays unnatural aggression toward humans that constitutes a demonstrable immediate or potential threat to human safety and/or a human injury."

And
"Human/Grizzly Bear Conflicts

Human safety is a high priority, and the risk to human safety must be minimized. As bear numbers and distribution increase, the potential for human/grizzly conflicts will also increase. The increase in human/grizzly encounters may jeopardize the safety of humans as well as the safety of the bears. Adequate response to human safety concerns will increase local support for the grizzly bear.

There will be no prosecution of any individual who injures or kills a grizzly bear while acting in self-defense if the bear is molesting, assaulting, killing, or threatening to kill a person.

IDFG shall provide timely information to the public and land management agencies about current bear distribution, including relocations, food conditions, activity, potential and current conflicts, and behaviors. Land management agencies are encouraged to contact their permittees with information that will help them avoid conflicts."

It says he has 20 acres--not that the bear was 20 acres away. I can have 100 acres but that is immaterial if the bear is 20 or 30 yards away eating my pigs and is in the same clearing my children play at.

[OleMan]

It was menacing HIS pigs---and was in HIS yard where his children play. If a grizzly is comfy enough with people to walk into a person's yard and harass their animals--they are a danger to your family. With grizzlies you can't wait until they are charging in that confined of an area--you will be dead before they realize that they were even shot. This was a nuisance grizzly that was finding food at people's homes not in the woods. It would have eventually injured or killed someone. This man did every farmer in the county a favor.

But what does the law say? And 20 acres isn't a "yard" by any stretch of the imagination.

Edit:

What is a "nuisance" grizzly?

It was menacing pigs, not people. This guy isn't telling the whole story, my BS-ometer went up when I saw it was a 20 acre spread.

Measurement by acreage is not anything that an animal knows about. One acre or twenty acres - 200, 2000, or 20000 - has no bearing on a wild predator's ability to attack a domesticated animal or human beings. I lived on a sizeable farm as a kid. Numbers of predators were killed in our small yard of maybe 2/10 of an acre, as well as a half mile from any building.

The details of the law may or may not indicate that the man violated it - but the people here are saying that if it can convict him in this case - the law is wrong. There are protected wolves stocked by the Feds and State. When they did that with the red wolves in eastern NC, some were killed on thousand acre hog farms, an others a hundred fee from someone's house. The wolves did not know about acreage, property lines or which animals or people they could attack or not.

[OleMan]

Apparently he was charge by the federalis because by Idaho state law he is in the clear. Isn't prosecutor discretion wonderful!

Edit: I know you like a big strong federal gov't Kreutz but this is one area (among many) that should be handled by local law--not federal.


http://species.idaho.gov/pdf/grizzly_plan.pdf

Specifically
"APPENDIX IV – Definitions used for Nuisance Bear Guidelines.

Nuisance grizzly bear: a grizzly bear that depredates livestock, causes property damage, or uses unnatural food that has been reasonably secured from the grizzly bear; or, a grizzly bear that displays unnatural aggression toward humans that constitutes a demonstrable immediate or potential threat to human safety and/or a human injury."

And
"Human/Grizzly Bear Conflicts

Human safety is a high priority, and the risk to human safety must be minimized. As bear numbers and distribution increase, the potential for human/grizzly conflicts will also increase. The increase in human/grizzly encounters may jeopardize the safety of humans as well as the safety of the bears. Adequate response to human safety concerns will increase local support for the grizzly bear.

There will be no prosecution of any individual who injures or kills a grizzly bear while acting in self-defense if the bear is molesting, assaulting, killing, or threatening to kill a person.

IDFG shall provide timely information to the public and land management agencies about current bear distribution, including relocations, food conditions, activity, potential and current conflicts, and behaviors. Land management agencies are encouraged to contact their permittees with information that will help them avoid conflicts."

It says he has 20 acres--not that the bear was 20 acres away. I can have 100 acres but that is immaterial if the bear is 20 or 30 yards away eating my pigs and is in the same clearing my children play at.

++++++++

[Kreutz]

Apparently he was charge by the federalis because by Idaho state law he is in the clear. Isn't prosecutor discretion wonderful!

Edit: I know you like a big strong federal gov't Kreutz but this is one area (among many) that should be handled by local law--not federal.

No, it should be federal law. Oftentimes local municipalities lack the resources, non-bias, or expertise for this sort of thing. Plus animals tend to migrate across county and state lines, isnt it easier to have federal law handle it? I seem to have seen a few folks here calling for a national CC reciprocity, the logic being its easier than navigating patchwork local/state laws. Doesn't the same logic apply here?

http://species.idaho.gov/pdf/grizzly_plan.pdf

Specifically
"APPENDIX IV – Definitions used for Nuisance Bear Guidelines.

Nuisance grizzly bear: a grizzly bear that depredates livestock, causes property damage, or uses unnatural food that has been reasonably secured from the grizzly bear; or, a grizzly bear that displays unnatural aggression toward humans that constitutes a demonstrable immediate or potential threat to human safety and/or a human injury."

Huh. I would think someone who builds their spread what was it, five miles(?) from the Canadian border would know there's a good chance grizzlies are there, and were there first, and would not leave pigs in an open enclosure.

Methinks a bear, in its natural habitat, pursuing a prey animal, is natural, not a "nuisance", and should be accounted for before one leaves dinner ripe for the picking out in the open.

This man is not totally innocent, he basically left trash out, and when an animal goes through a poorly sealed garbage can, whose fault is it? I hope this dude does get fined for his stupidity, maybe he'll learn something. Since the bear never menaced a person, its good he can be prosecuted for wasting a bear that was just doing its thing.

[SHMIV]

Kreutz.... Would you expect the man to keep his pigs in his basement? Or perhaps he should have built a 20 foot fence around his 20 acres? Or perhaps you are suggesting that good farm land ought not be utilized on account of grizzlies?

No, this is silly. The man spotted a threat to his family and property and neutralized it. Then, being the good and responsible citizen that he is, made a phone call to warn others that their families and property may also be in danger. For this, he is being persecuted.

In my book, no endangered or protected species takes precedence over the safety and well-being of my family. If one has livestock, they rely on that livestock to provide for their family.

I'd like to see those who brought the charges jailed for unjustly penalizing this man and wasting public resources to do so.

[seeknulfind]

Wouldn't it be fun if this case was nullified by a jury?

I'm sure it would've been better if they just made sausage out the evidence, as I wouldn't wish this battle on anyone. On the other hand, idiot laws like this deserved to be challenged.

Kruetz.... you're driving down a narrow windy road at 55 mph, you've got a semi truck inches from your behind and bearing down. Four cars, a family of 4 in each, are coming the other way - suddenly you notice a family of turtles crossing the road ahead of you. Oh no! You realize it's a protected spotted turtle on the endangered species list. So do you drive off the cliff to certain death, knowing in your heart that you are obeying the law? Or do you crunch a turtle or two?

I'm just sayin...

Andy

P.S. I know my scenario isn't the same as the case the bacon loving griz - but my point is there HAS to come a time where the decision to ignore certain laws comes into play. I think the term is "mitigating circumstances".

In the case in question, I fail to understand what the size of the farm has to do with anything. The bear was after pigs in a pen. Folks generally have a right to take reasonable action protect people and livestock. By "reasonable action", I mean an action that is prudent for the circumstances. Thus, laying in wait to shoot the griz as it wanders in on the far corner of your land, crossing to get to a stream, is NOT reasonable. Shooting one down as it threatens livestock or family IS reasonable. Here, I'd say, the unanswered question is: what was the bear actually doing when it was shot?

[Kreutz]

The charge of killing a threatened species is punishable by up to a year in prison, a maximum fine of $50,000, and up to one year of supervised release.

Seems like it would have been easier and cheaper to put them in the barn...and what self-respecting self-styled man of the land doesnt have one of those?

Again, hope he learned something from this.

[seeknulfind]

The charge of killing a threatened species is punishable by up to a year in prison, a maximum fine of $50,000, and up to one year of supervised release.

Seems like it would have been easier and cheaper to put them in the barn...and what self-respecting self-styled man of the land doesnt have one of those?

Again, hope he learned something from this.

I've heard of pig pens lots of times - pig barns? Not so much. Try again.